Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?

[cbeast]

Because, what you guys call capitalism, is not capitalism. The US is not capitalism since the creation of income tax, the FED, the anti-trust laws, the 60's war on poverty welfare programs, etc. And Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, where the ruler can just seize you if he wants.

Capitalism based on voluntary exchange of goods and services at the market produced by men in competition free of coercion, with private property and personal liberty at the absolute basic right.
Show me how can people in the US choose not to use state provided services, and in turn not to pay taxes, like a voluntary trade with companies, and i say you have capitalism in the US.
Show me a real private business forces you to buy its product. If it can than it is not a private business in capitalist terms.

Finally! Somebody who understands. 

Thx Neofelis!

I have been reading this forum for months, and, actually reading your posts was the reason i registered! I can finally talk with someone from the "same page". :-)

Ok, so no government involved in commerce, so who issues the money?

[AZwarel]

Because, what you guys call capitalism, is not capitalism. The US is not capitalism since the creation of income tax, the FED, the anti-trust laws, the 60's war on poverty welfare programs, etc. And Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, where the ruler can just seize you if he wants.

Capitalism based on voluntary exchange of goods and services at the market produced by men in competition free of coercion, with private property and personal liberty at the absolute basic right.
Show me how can people in the US choose not to use state provided services, and in turn not to pay taxes, like a voluntary trade with companies, and i say you have capitalism in the US.
Show me a real private business forces you to buy its product. If it can than it is not a private business in capitalist terms.

Finally! Somebody who understands. 

Thx Neofelis!

I have been reading this forum for months, and, actually reading your posts was the reason i registered! I can finally talk with someone from the "same page". :-)

Ok, so no government involved in commerce, so who issues the money?

Hello? Bitcoin? We issue it? :-) I mean that is the whole point!

[cbeast]

Because, what you guys call capitalism, is not capitalism. The US is not capitalism since the creation of income tax, the FED, the anti-trust laws, the 60's war on poverty welfare programs, etc. And Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, where the ruler can just seize you if he wants.

Capitalism based on voluntary exchange of goods and services at the market produced by men in competition free of coercion, with private property and personal liberty at the absolute basic right.
Show me how can people in the US choose not to use state provided services, and in turn not to pay taxes, like a voluntary trade with companies, and i say you have capitalism in the US.
Show me a real private business forces you to buy its product. If it can than it is not a private business in capitalist terms.

Finally! Somebody who understands. 

Thx Neofelis!

I have been reading this forum for months, and, actually reading your posts was the reason i registered! I can finally talk with someone from the "same page". :-)

Ok, so no government involved in commerce, so who issues the money?

Hello? Bitcoin? We issue it? :-) I mean that is the whole point!

So capitalism has never existed before?

[AZwarel]

Because, what you guys call capitalism, is not capitalism. The US is not capitalism since the creation of income tax, the FED, the anti-trust laws, the 60's war on poverty welfare programs, etc. And Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, where the ruler can just seize you if he wants.

Capitalism based on voluntary exchange of goods and services at the market produced by men in competition free of coercion, with private property and personal liberty at the absolute basic right.
Show me how can people in the US choose not to use state provided services, and in turn not to pay taxes, like a voluntary trade with companies, and i say you have capitalism in the US.
Show me a real private business forces you to buy its product. If it can than it is not a private business in capitalist terms.

Finally! Somebody who understands. 

Thx Neofelis!

I have been reading this forum for months, and, actually reading your posts was the reason i registered! I can finally talk with someone from the "same page". :-)

Ok, so no government involved in commerce, so who issues the money?

Hello? Bitcoin? We issue it? :-) I mean that is the whole point!

So capitalism has never existed before?

Well, if You check the history of the US for example, till 1860, the US dollar issued by government was only ~4% of the total currency used in the territory of the US. The rest were all privately issued currencies and the economy managed to boom. So national fiat money - especially fiat money based on debt - is a very new thing which existed for no more than a 100 years on average. People tend to forget history about the born of banks "banca", which were at the beginning only changed the so many privately/county issued currencies.

[jeffersonairplane]

Because, what you guys call capitalism, is not capitalism. The US is not capitalism since the creation of income tax, the FED, the anti-trust laws, the 60's war on poverty welfare programs, etc. And Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, where the ruler can just seize you if he wants.

Capitalism based on voluntary exchange of goods and services at the market produced by men in competition free of coercion, with private property and personal liberty at the absolute basic right.
Show me how can people in the US choose not to use state provided services, and in turn not to pay taxes, like a voluntary trade with companies, and i say you have capitalism in the US.
Show me a real private business forces you to buy its product. If it can than it is not a private business in capitalist terms.

Finally! Somebody who understands. 

Thx Neofelis!

I have been reading this forum for months, and, actually reading your posts was the reason i registered! I can finally talk with someone from the "same page". :-)

Ok, so no government involved in commerce, so who issues the money?

Hello? Bitcoin? We issue it? :-) I mean that is the whole point!

So capitalism has never existed before?

Well, if You check the history of the US for example, till 1860, the US dollar issued by government was only ~4% of the total currency used in the territory of the US. The rest were all privately issued currencies and the economy managed to boom. So national fiat money - especially fiat money based on debt - is a very new thing which existed for no more than a 100 years on average. People tend to forget history about the born of banks "banca", which were at the beginning only changed the so many privately/county issued currencies.

That managed boom was pure luck of the fact they were based on a smaller scale. You take socialism now and you won't have filthy rich people, which let's be real that could be anyone of us here.

[AZwarel]

Because, what you guys call capitalism, is not capitalism. The US is not capitalism since the creation of income tax, the FED, the anti-trust laws, the 60's war on poverty welfare programs, etc. And Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, where the ruler can just seize you if he wants.

Capitalism based on voluntary exchange of goods and services at the market produced by men in competition free of coercion, with private property and personal liberty at the absolute basic right.
Show me how can people in the US choose not to use state provided services, and in turn not to pay taxes, like a voluntary trade with companies, and i say you have capitalism in the US.
Show me a real private business forces you to buy its product. If it can than it is not a private business in capitalist terms.

Finally! Somebody who understands. 

Thx Neofelis!

I have been reading this forum for months, and, actually reading your posts was the reason i registered! I can finally talk with someone from the "same page". :-)

Ok, so no government involved in commerce, so who issues the money?

Hello? Bitcoin? We issue it? :-) I mean that is the whole point!

So capitalism has never existed before?

Well, if You check the history of the US for example, till 1860, the US dollar issued by government was only ~4% of the total currency used in the territory of the US. The rest were all privately issued currencies and the economy managed to boom. So national fiat money - especially fiat money based on debt - is a very new thing which existed for no more than a 100 years on average. People tend to forget history about the born of banks "banca", which were at the beginning only changed the so many privately/county issued currencies.

That managed boom was pure luck of the fact they were based on a smaller scale. You take socialism now and you won't have filthy rich people, which let's be real that could be anyone of us here.

Why does it matter if some people are filthy rich, if the "masses" are still doing better than before the filthy rich emerged? I just wonder why does it matter if someone doing a 1000 times better, if i can live a comfortable and peaceful life. Does it hurt? Like it is a physical pain? Most people do not compare themselves with billionares. They compare themselves and their wealth status with others in the similar job/neighbor. The mantra of "but they are richhhh!" is i think is just a theoretical pure envy.

[Ibian]

Extremes of Socialism (USSR) or Capitalism (USA) rarely last for more than 3 generations. USSR went down first and the US is now on the 3rd gen, nigh last, of it's extreme version of Capitalism. A blend of the two, Socialist Capitalism, may be a stable form that is yet to be tried in earnest however it is being dabbled with in China.

Fundamentally, capitalism is curbed by maximum earning limits for companies or individuals, thereby trying to avoid the pure capitalism motto of 'greed (at the expense of everyone else) is good' whilst simultaneously avoiding the socialist syndrome of 'living of other peoples money'.

Thoughts?

No current western country uses a capitalist model. We are all socialist states. Which is just a synonym for communism - Stalin originally called his party the communist party because he didn't think the existing socialist parties went far enough.

[twiifm]

If you want to know then survey different economic data empirically and hypothesize a correlation.

Currently, probably the highest standard of living are the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland.  In US, UK, Canada & Australia the time after WW2 from about 1950s to 1980s had the least inequality and highest middle class.

All of these countries are capitalist.  But the reasons for the variability of inequality can be correlated to the tax rate and also the relation of asset price to economic growth.  The relationship as described by Thomas Piketty is (r)return on investment & (g) growth.

When r>g you have investments outperforming growth.

http://radioopensource.org/capital-in-10-graphs/

So the solution to poverty is not an either/or proposition it lies somewhere in between.  Most likely a capitalist system with a high tax rate paying for social programs

[twiifm]

Why does it matter if some people are filthy rich, if the "masses" are still doing better than before the filthy rich emerged? I just wonder why does it matter if someone doing a 1000 times better, if i can live a comfortable and peaceful life. Does it hurt? Like it is a physical pain? Most people do not compare themselves with billionares. They compare themselves and their wealth status with others in the similar job/neighbor. The mantra of "but they are richhhh!" is i think is just a theoretical pure envy.

It doesn't matter at all.  But what matters is that if inequality goes unchecked the system will eat itself since the filthy rich need consumers to make money from.   What you want is a bell curve w/ most people in the middle.  History has shown us that when there is too much inequality bad shit happen.  French Revolution, Russian Revolution, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc..

[AZwarel]

If you want to know then survey different economic data empirically and hypothesize a correlation.

Currently, probably the highest standard of living are the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland.  In US, UK, Canada & Australia the time after WW2 from about 1950s to 1980s had the least inequality and highest middle class.

All of these countries are capitalist.  But the reasons for the variability of inequality can be correlated to the tax rate and also the relation of asset price to economic growth.  The relationship as described by Thomas Piketty is (r)return on investment & (g) growth.

When r>g you have investments outperforming growth.

http://radioopensource.org/capital-in-10-graphs/

So the solution to poverty is not an either/or proposition it lies somewhere in between.  Most likely a capitalist system with a high tax rate paying for social programs

You should check this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYkl3XlEneA, the numbers says crystal clear, that all state programs directed to reduce poverty through welfare programs founded on high taxes actually increase poverty, and reduces, even destroys economic growth for all excepts those with "friends of the state", the crony capitalist high class. I thought the history of the USSR is a clear lesson about "reducing inequality through redistribution". Sigh. I am from a post socialist country, i have lived it through.

[Ron~Popeil]

If you want to know then survey different economic data empirically and hypothesize a correlation.

Currently, probably the highest standard of living are the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland.  In US, UK, Canada & Australia the time after WW2 from about 1950s to 1980s had the least inequality and highest middle class.

All of these countries are capitalist.  But the reasons for the variability of inequality can be correlated to the tax rate and also the relation of asset price to economic growth.  The relationship as described by Thomas Piketty is (r)return on investment & (g) growth.

When r>g you have investments outperforming growth.

http://radioopensource.org/capital-in-10-graphs/

So the solution to poverty is not an either/or proposition it lies somewhere in between.  Most likely a capitalist system with a high tax rate paying for social programs

You should check this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYkl3XlEneA, the numbers says crystal clear, that all state programs directed to reduce poverty through welfare programs founded on high taxes actually increase poverty, and reduces, even destroys economic growth for all excepts those with "friends of the state", the crony capitalist high class. I thought the history of the USSR is a clear lesson about "reducing inequality through redistribution". Sigh. I am from a post socialist country, i have lived it through.

Facts and reason will not convince a committed socialist. Only living through it will convince them that their ideas need to be reconsidered.

[AZwarel]

Why does it matter if some people are filthy rich, if the "masses" are still doing better than before the filthy rich emerged? I just wonder why does it matter if someone doing a 1000 times better, if i can live a comfortable and peaceful life. Does it hurt? Like it is a physical pain? Most people do not compare themselves with billionares. They compare themselves and their wealth status with others in the similar job/neighbor. The mantra of "but they are richhhh!" is i think is just a theoretical pure envy.

It doesn't matter at all.  But what matters is that if inequality goes unchecked the system will eat itself since the filthy rich need consumers to make money from.   What you want is a bell curve w/ most people in the middle.  History has shown us that when there is too much inequality bad shit happen.  French Revolution, Russian Revolution, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc..

I understand your point and the good intentions behind it. Although, there is no such thing as "checking inequality", because, by what standard? Who decides how much is OK, and how is not? Do we vote on your ability to make money through VOLUNTARY trade is too much  - because, do not forget that those historical examples you mentioned were not based on voluntary trade, those were based on feudal reigns, or despots, or other force and privilege based societies -, so now we can stop you to became "too unequal"?

You understand my point i think. I only say, that inequality is not morally bad or good, it just is. The same thing as lions eat gazelle is not bad or good either, it is just as it is. You, or me, or none can make a decision about someone else's life, or they wealth, because on what ground? On the ground of need? So i can morally justified to take away half your salary because i can not get enough staff to satisfy my need?

No bad intentions, just asking :-)

[twiifm]

You should check this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYkl3XlEneA, the numbers says crystal clear, that all state programs directed to reduce poverty through welfare programs founded on high taxes actually increase poverty, and reduces, even destroys economic growth for all excepts those with "friends of the state", the crony capitalist high class. I thought the history of the USSR is a clear lesson about "reducing inequality through redistribution". Sigh. I am from a post socialist country, i have lived it through.

Uh No.  I don't care for Stefan Molyneux.  He's not an academic.  I don't want to waste my time listening to him.  You should read Thomas Piketty's "Capital, In the 21st Century if you want to see empirical studies.  He will probably win a Nobel in Economics.

Please cite these studies about social programs reducing economic growth.  I'm specifically referring the Scandinavian nordic system.  Scandinavians are not 'socialist'.  They are Capitalist but they have high taxes to fund social programs.  Its not about redistribution its about restraining runaway inequality.  

My family escaped from a Communist country so I can empathize w you.  I'm a supporter of Capitalism but I also support progressive tax rates

[AZwarel]

As a side note, i am just wondering, how can so many people here, in the very heart of capitalism, free trade and laissez-fair itself which is bitcoin - even if driven by good intentions -, still insist on "inequality", government, and social "justice" (who is "the society"? if not even 2 person, like in a marriage can not get on the same ground - as shown in divorce rate -, why they assume 300.000.000 would on anything beyond the "don't shoot me" rule??).

I know why, because many have been thought about that (socially necessary (by Marx..) labor time=value. So their basic assumption is: someone got exploited! Which means the economy is a zero sum game in mathematical terms. (because if the "capitalist" extracts value from the "laborer", the so called surplus, than no value really added.).

In reality, just think about the most basic situation in every day life of exchange. You change your dollars to buy a good/service, because you think that has higher value than that dollar bill in your hands. The seller also thinks, that the dollar bill in your hand has higher value than the good/service hes selling.

But wait. That means, both parties in the exchange increased their sum value!! That is why the exploitation theory does not stands, that is why voluntary trade is the only way to increase wealth in society (yes, it is only perceived, subjective increase, but did you get happier? Yes. Than it is real for You!), and that is why inequality does not really care anyone. If they would, they would invite homeless/poor people for dinner, but strangely, people do not do that in real life - so much for worrying about "inequality".

[twiifm]

I understand your point and the good intentions behind it. Although, there is no such thing as "checking inequality", because, by what standard? Who decides how much is OK, and how is not? Do we vote on your ability to make money through VOLUNTARY trade is too much  - because, do not forget that those historical examples you mentioned were not based on voluntary trade, those were based on feudal reigns, or despots, or other force and privilege based societies -, so now we can stop you to became "too unequal"?

You understand my point i think. I only say, that inequality is not morally bad or good, it just is. The same thing as lions eat gazelle is not bad or good either, it is just as it is. You, or me, or none can make a decision about someone else's life, or they wealth, because on what ground? On the ground of need? So i can morally justified to take away half your salary because i can not get enough staff to satisfy my need?

No bad intentions, just asking :-)

Society decides.  In the Scandinavian countries the people voluntary accept high taxes because they choose that over extreme rich & poor.

You don't take away my salary.  Progressive tax is designed to tax people more at higher income brackets.  You are welcomed to make as much money as you want just the more you make the higher your taxes.  So if I make $250K/ year and you make $50K my effective tax rate is higher

The US has such a system but it's actually easier for rich people to avoid taxes through business ownership & capital gains.  I really don't know much about Sweden's tax system.   Only that income tax is higher than US.  But their corporate tax is lower than US.  Many US companies use foreign tax havens because of this.  I support the lowering of US corporate tax rates so some of that tax money can be repatriated

[AZwarel]

You should check this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYkl3XlEneA, the numbers says crystal clear, that all state programs directed to reduce poverty through welfare programs founded on high taxes actually increase poverty, and reduces, even destroys economic growth for all excepts those with "friends of the state", the crony capitalist high class. I thought the history of the USSR is a clear lesson about "reducing inequality through redistribution". Sigh. I am from a post socialist country, i have lived it through.

Uh No.  I don't care for Stefan Molyneux.  He's not an academic.  I don't want to waste my time listening to him.  You should read Thomas Piketty's "Capital, In the 21st Century if you want to see empirical studies.  He will probably win a Nobel in Economics.

Please cite these studies about social programs reducing economic growth.  I'm specifically referring the Scandinavian nordic system.  Scandinavians are not 'socialist'.  They are Capitalist but they have high taxes to fund social programs.  Its not about redistribution its about restraining runaway inequality.  

My family escaped from a Communist country so I can empathize w you.  I'm a supporter of Capitalism but I also support progressive tax rates

I understand. It is a long video, he is not academic (thx god), but 99% of the graph shown were from US government institutes. The whole video is just number crunching basically. Math is just math:)

Btw, why is that most people only listen to academics? That is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem. You do not argue the argument, you argue the person. If i were a peasant boy in the age of Galielo saing You, that the Earth is round, You would have ignored me, but still i was right! :-)

[AZwarel]

I understand your point and the good intentions behind it. Although, there is no such thing as "checking inequality", because, by what standard? Who decides how much is OK, and how is not? Do we vote on your ability to make money through VOLUNTARY trade is too much  - because, do not forget that those historical examples you mentioned were not based on voluntary trade, those were based on feudal reigns, or despots, or other force and privilege based societies -, so now we can stop you to became "too unequal"?

You understand my point i think. I only say, that inequality is not morally bad or good, it just is. The same thing as lions eat gazelle is not bad or good either, it is just as it is. You, or me, or none can make a decision about someone else's life, or they wealth, because on what ground? On the ground of need? So i can morally justified to take away half your salary because i can not get enough staff to satisfy my need?

No bad intentions, just asking :-)

Society decides.  In the Scandinavian countries the people voluntary accept high taxes because they choose that over extreme rich & poor.

You don't take away my salary.  Progressive tax is designed to tax people more at higher income brackets.  You are welcomed to make as much money as you want just the more you make the higher your taxes.  So if I make $250K/ year and you make $50K my effective tax rate is higher

The US has such a system but it's actually easier for rich people to avoid taxes through business ownership & capital gains.  I really don't know much about Sweden's tax system.   Only that income tax is higher than US.  But their corporate tax is lower than US.  Many US companies use foreign tax havens because of this.  I support the lowering of US corporate tax rates so some of that tax money can be repatriated

Sadly, the "Nordic model" is failing slowly but steadily. So no, progressive tax is essentially killing them (read here: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510 for actual economic facts). I try to explain why. And by the way, i really appreciate Your friendly manner, and i respect Your views, it is rare to have a real and friendly conversation :-)

As You mentioned, those who really rich does not get paid, they have capital gains, not a salary, so income tax does not apply to them. So, in effect progressive tax burdens those, who are among the highest in demand jobs; engineers, doctor, researchers, the most valuable (by this i mean society values them highly!) members of the labor (means salary earners) force.

Here in our country we had this very odd situation, the capital city government wanted to hire sanitation workers to clear the city. They offered a salary higher than than the average of teachers and resident doctors. That resulted many people with PHDs, and even college professors to apply for jobs cleaning the streets! They had 10.000+ applications for 250 street "swiper" jobs in 1 week, it was all over the news, and it was a joke.

Am only telling this, because if you tax those who can contribute more harder, than they will just work less, produce less wealth, since they going to  lose the "2 extra hour per day" anyway to taxes, so why work (=produce more value) more.

And that is the problem of progressive taxes, that is why the Nordic model is failing slowly since the 1970's and as a result, the whole economic "pie" begin to shrink.

[AZwarel]

If you want to know then survey different economic data empirically and hypothesize a correlation.

Currently, probably the highest standard of living are the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland.  In US, UK, Canada & Australia the time after WW2 from about 1950s to 1980s had the least inequality and highest middle class.

All of these countries are capitalist.  But the reasons for the variability of inequality can be correlated to the tax rate and also the relation of asset price to economic growth.  The relationship as described by Thomas Piketty is (r)return on investment & (g) growth.

When r>g you have investments outperforming growth.

http://radioopensource.org/capital-in-10-graphs/

So the solution to poverty is not an either/or proposition it lies somewhere in between.  Most likely a capitalist system with a high tax rate paying for social programs

You should check this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYkl3XlEneA, the numbers says crystal clear, that all state programs directed to reduce poverty through welfare programs founded on high taxes actually increase poverty, and reduces, even destroys economic growth for all excepts those with "friends of the state", the crony capitalist high class. I thought the history of the USSR is a clear lesson about "reducing inequality through redistribution". Sigh. I am from a post socialist country, i have lived it through.

Facts and reason will not convince a committed socialist. Only living through it will convince them that their ideas need to be reconsidered.

With my mind i agree, mostly, but i think some socialist can be reasoned with, after all, many have changed their minds on the way :-)
And it is utmost important for the bitcoin community to understand why socialism can not work, otherwise the whole technology might be "captured" by false ideology.

I do not know who said but: "to socialism to win needs nothing more than freedom believers not to speak up".

[twiifm]

As a side note, i am just wondering, how can so many people here, in the very heart of capitalism, free trade and laissez-fair itself which is bitcoin - even if driven by good intentions -, still insist on "inequality", government, and social "justice" (who is "the society"? if not even 2 person, like in a marriage can not get on the same ground - as shown in divorce rate -, why they assume 300.000.000 would on anything beyond the "don't shoot me" rule??).

I know why, because many have been thought about that (socially necessary (by Marx..) labor time=value. So their basic assumption is: someone got exploited! Which means the economy is a zero sum game in mathematical terms. (because if the "capitalist" extracts value from the "laborer", the so called surplus, than no value really added.).

In reality, just think about the most basic situation in every day life of exchange. You change your dollars to buy a good/service, because you think that has higher value than that dollar bill in your hands. The seller also thinks, that the dollar bill in your hand has higher value than the good/service hes selling.

But wait. That means, both parties in the exchange increased their sum value!! That is why the exploitation theory does not stands, that is why voluntary trade is the only way to increase wealth in society (yes, it is only perceived, subjective increase, but did you get happier? Yes. Than it is real for You!), and that is why inequality does not really care anyone. If they would, they would invite homeless/poor people for dinner, but strangely, people do not do that in real life - so much for worrying about "inequality".

You are not looking at inequality from an economics point of view.  You are looking at it from a social or philosophical point of view.  There's always inequality because people have different abilities.  But when I say "inequality in economics" you have to look at the trend of increasing wealth gap.  The reason it is dangerous is because we need middle class people to act as consumers or else economies will contract.  Rich people are few so they can't do all the consumption to support production.  Its just inefficient.

The problem of laissez-faire is that its an incomplete picture and it assumes that people are good or rational.  You have to look at the problem globally alongside scarcity of resource.  Environmental issues.  Issues of technological unemployment.  I'm not against free trade or anything.  But I think there is a concern about the trend of increasing inequality coming out from the academic economics.

Right now the way development moves around globally is that money chases the cheapest labor.  So places like Taiwan & Korea was poor 50 years ago but they had cheap labor so the capital (investments) went there.  Then it was China, India, etc..  Now Vietnam, Bangladesh, etc.  What's left behind in China is now a burgeoning Middle Class and now they can be consumers.  In this way I'm pro Capitalism because the capital allows investment into infrastructure, technology and legal progress that allows these countries to develop.

However I also understand Marx's critique of Capitalism.  About the tendency of capital to consolidate into monopolies, oligarchies

So there's 2 views the short-medium & the long term

[Ibian]

You should check this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYkl3XlEneA, the numbers says crystal clear, that all state programs directed to reduce poverty through welfare programs founded on high taxes actually increase poverty, and reduces, even destroys economic growth for all excepts those with "friends of the state", the crony capitalist high class. I thought the history of the USSR is a clear lesson about "reducing inequality through redistribution". Sigh. I am from a post socialist country, i have lived it through.

Uh No.  I don't care for Stefan Molyneux.  He's not an academic.  I don't want to waste my time listening to him.  You should read Thomas Piketty's "Capital, In the 21st Century if you want to see empirical studies.  He will probably win a Nobel in Economics.

Please cite these studies about social programs reducing economic growth.  I'm specifically referring the Scandinavian nordic system.  Scandinavians are not 'socialist'.  They are Capitalist but they have high taxes to fund social programs.  Its not about redistribution its about restraining runaway inequality.  

My family escaped from a Communist country so I can empathize w you.  I'm a supporter of Capitalism but I also support progressive tax rates

Shut. Up.

On Stefan, he talks numbers. Hard statistics that anyone can look up and verify. "Care for" has nothing to do with it, that's just ignoring reality.

On Scandinavia, and specifically my country, Denmark, you either have no clue what capitalism and socialism mean or are just trolling. The state takes half our income before it even hits our bank accounts. Welfare, enough to live on and even raise a family on, is available to anyone who can't find work. That is not capitalism, that is taking from those who work and giving to those who do not work. Communism. Given that less than half the population work, and that a growing number of those are government employed (read: the working people pay their salery through taxes) there is an ever-growing tax burden and ever-shrinking benefits from those taxes.

The problem with welfare is that it reduces incentive to find a job. Why bother when the state pays for you? And so we have less people working every year and more people taking handouts. That's how social programs reduce economic growth in a nutshell.